Increasing road user charges with inflation

Siân Berry: Do you agree that it would be unfair and contrary to your Transport Strategy if charges for people driving in London returned to levels seen before the pandemic while charges for people using buses, tubes and trains increased?

The Mayor: As you will be aware, TfL launched a consultation on 28 July seeking views on the future operation of the Congestion Charge. The main proposals include no charges in the evenings, operating between 12:00-18:00 on weekends and retaining the current charge level of £15. These proposals are intended to ensure the Congestion Charge scheme remains effective in managing traffic and congestion in central London in support of long-term MTS objectives as well as effectively addressing persistent transport challenges arising from the pandemic. This in turn will support London's economic recovery and help ensure it is green and sustainable.
Whilst I will need to review the feedback from this consultation before any decision is taken, I would point out that, should these proposals go ahead, the Congestion Charge will have increased from £11.50 in 2016 to £15, representing a 30 per cent increase.
Over the same period for public transport, TfL fares were frozen for 5 years, and in March 2021, as part of TfL’s funding deal with Government, I was required to increase fares under my control by 2.6 per cent. In the eight years prior to 2016, under the previous Mayor, TfL fares increased by more than 42 per cent.

Facial recognition technology

Tony Devenish: Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham has commented on privacy issues around the use of live facial recognition technology in public places, duly expressing “deep concern” about the potential for such technology to be deployed “inappropriately, excessively or even recklessly. What step have you taken to address these concerns in London?

The Mayor: In a recent Opinion on the use of Live Facial Recognition Technology (LFRT) in public spaces, the UK Information Commissioner set out how data protection law applies to this type of data processing and affirmed the very high bar that non-law enforcement organisations must pass in order to comply with the law and use this technology.
I agree with the ICO Commissioner and believe we, as a society, should be extremely cautious about the use of LFRT, so I welcome her Opinion. This explains that operators must not only demonstrate that any use of LFRT is lawful, fair, necessary and proportionate but must also set out a series of detailed considerations in their Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA). The Opinion also states that the operators must comply with UK GDPR Article 9 when processing special category data, which includes personal data relating to race and ethnicity. If automated biometric technologies, such as Live Facial Recognition, proposed by non-law-enforcement organisations cannot meet the tests set out by the Information Commissioner’s Office then they should not be deployed in London.
Our approach, through the draft Public London Charter and draft Emerging Technology Charter to be launched later this year, is rooted in the observance of law and enhancing public transparency. A key provision common to both Charters is that where data gathering technologies are to be deployed, then DPIAs should be shared with City Hall and published openly on the London Datastore.
The Chief Digital Officer for London will continue to monitor the situation and make necessary recommendations to me and national government, who have the power to legislate, if required.